Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Boston zoning board appeal hearings for 05/19/2026 is now in session. Here this hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livestreamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing.

The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, austin.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives participate in this hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition.

The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project that is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform.

Click it again, and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes, and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press 6 to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host.

Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first, and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as mister Stemberg reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief, and all public testimony will be limited to ninety seconds per speaker. K. Mister Sembridge.

Good morning, madam chair. Good

morning. Mister Valencia.

Madam chair present.

Good morning, miss miss Turner. Good morning, madam chair present. Good morning, miss Bedrazo. Good morning, madam chair present. Good morning, miss Panada. Good morning, madam chair present. Good morning, mister Collins.

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good

morning. I'll turn it over to mister Snubridge.

Thank you, madam chair. Good morning to the rest of the board members. We'll begin today's hearing with the approval of a hearing that's scheduled for 09:30AM. These hearing events are from April 16, April 28, and May 5 of this year. I'll make a motion, approved.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bednar Baranza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

The votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 09:30AM. All extensions appear to be reasonable and should be will be supported. If there if anyone has any questions, I'll read them all in when I resolve it and then get entertained the questions about the chair. First, we have CaseBOA1563584 with the address of 2 Hillsborough Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1548022.

The address is 1029 Tremont Next, we have CaseBOA1530242. The address of 15 Tremont Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1 BO 8BOA1142276 with the address of 79 Front Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1550107. The address of 451 East 7th Street.

Next, we have CaseBOA1019011 with the address of 2224 Woodbine Street. Next one. Next one, we have CasePOA92982435 with the address of 198, which will have and those are the extension. Thank

you, missus Stemberg. Any questions from the board?

Yes, ma'am. Sure. About the last case, 198 Goodrough Avenue. If attorney Small is here, I'm just wondering about this is the fifth extension. Mhmm. Yeah. I wanted to ask Arthur Small about this. And so the first question is, when was this project approved the first time at Thornton Small?

The project was originally approved in 2020, I believe. And since then, we was held up in litigation. There was a property line dispute with the neighbor at 196 Woodrow Ave. So that was in Land Court for a little while, but that has since been resolved. But it wasn't like it was it was challenged, line. Thank you. So at this moment,

the project is ready to move forward?

Project is ready to move forward with another extension.

Excellent. Thank you very much. No problem. Questions with manager. Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

Motion to grant the extensions as requested.

Second. Thank you. Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedebrazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

That go through the recommendations scheduled for 09:30AM. These are the recommendations for the recent subcommittee meeting. They were all approved. One was a proviso, which I would point out. First, we have Kate VOA 1797694 with the address of 44312 Street, which was approved.

Next, we have case BOA1813812 with the address of 59 Bellevue Hill Road, which was approved. Next, case VOA 1823043 with the address of 15 Berkeley Hill Road. This was approved with the proposal for site planning view by by the Boston Planning Fund. And finally, we have to be disciplined. Have case POA 1721164 with the address of 2220 Fairmont Avenue, which was for that chair of the.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May have a motion?

Motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations.

May I have a second? Second.

District Beverage? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

Yes.

Miss Vibrazo? Yes. Miss Cannato? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

With that, we're going to the hearing schedule for 09:30AM. At this time, we'll ask if there are any quest for withdrawals or deferrals from the 09:30AM time frame. Hopefully, it will be, but hearing none now, but what do we do? So the first case, this case, BOA1837594 with the address of 94, The 94 B. If the applicants and will their their representative present, they please explain the

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Couldn't hear you clearly, board.

Are you the applicant?

Yes. I am.

Great. Can you state your name and address for the record and please proceed?

Yes. My name is James Guerrero. Address is 4255 Washington Roussindale, Mass.

K. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. So we've we've gone through a very long community process here to construct a three unit building. This project had started off in its in its primary iteration or first iteration as a six unit structure. And after a very long community process and working side by side with the neighbors, I came to realize that the density may have been too large for this lot. This is a vacant parcel that's been vacant for quite some time.

And so what we had done was we went and worked with did a very long community process and decided to scale this back. And so what we're designing here is we're designing a three unit parcel. I mean, a three unit townhouse building side by side under a lot of guidance from the neighborhood as far as making into one simple building, creating adequate parking space, being able to reduce the sort of density and scale as far as the roof by creating a mansard structure here to be able to really make it fit within the neighborhood character of the site. And we're we're looking to get approved for a three unit dwelling here.

Questions from the board?

Yes. I have a couple of questions. Is the owner planning to live on this property?

No. Not currently.

No. Okay.

And then I saw that some neighbors had concerns about flooding. Do you have anything to say in regards to that?

I know that we're gonna be pursuing approval from Boston Water and Sewer Commission after this. So we had actually taken that into great consideration. Obviously, this is going to be through state and federal law that we have to manage all of the storm water on-site. So we will be mitigating any type of storm water and runoff as well. The other thing too is the way that we've designed the site is to go with the natural grade of the site as well.

So bringing the building forward towards the bill towards the street and allowing it to to grate to slope down as well. In addition to that, that's another reason why we didn't add any underground parking just due to the fact that it would have to change the grade significantly of the site, and we'd have to bring a lot of fill in and raise it. So we didn't wanna really disturb the natural the natural grade of the site. So we designed it this way to really mitigate storm water and runoff and flooding. And we've gone through a very large a very long design process with the community at several meetings outside of the scheduled meetings that we have a neighborhood council and have shown them at least four different iterations of this plan.

Right. Thank you. And then lastly, can you just walk us through the parking plan once again?

Yes. Thank you.

Parking has been a major concern. And so what we did here was that we really took parking into consideration specifically for the neighborhood because that's a tighter street. What we've done here is that we've paved back a little bit so that we can have two parking spaces per unit. It's a three unit building. We feel as if three parking spaces per unit would really be suffice for this for this site specifically just due to parking being really tight for the street and not to disturb the neighborhood.

But being a church across the street, Sundays is a is a day that there's high traffic there. When we're thinking through snow and snow removal, having all that parking off-site and being and allowing two parking spaces per unit is is something at the request of of the neighborhood, and and we fully agree with them

regarding that.

Thank

you. Can you confirm, is this condos or rentals?

It is condos.

Condos. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

To piggyback on miss Turner's comment about the parking, did you receive any feedback from the planning department about how much space you are allocating for parking in the driveway. Just looking at the site plan, it looks like you are using probably more than 30% of the whole site for parking and pavement. So did you get any feedback about reducing parking or reorganizing the parking to provide more open space?

We we didn't we didn't get any provision from the planning department, but really what we were thinking through is really for the neighborhood. And we what we did was we talked, we had some feedback from neighborhood council and also the neighbors to to design the parking plan. And due to the fact that this is a fairly long site and larger site, the whole back area will remain open space.

Yep. Thank you. With that, may I have public

I won't is your architect on by any chance?

He is not on. He was

Okay. In fortunate.

I think it's a pretty, you know, straightforward project. You have an a tremendous amount of site work on the on the lot with the amount of trees that you have. But I the only thing that I would say to, like, work with the neighborhood's character is that the front facade almost looks like the back of the building.

And,

you know, I'm not sure if I should recommend, like, a BPD design review just for the kind of the front Uh-huh. Because I know that you've gone through a very elaborate process. But, you know, just by switching the stairs to the other side and really having the kitchen face to front, you'll be able to have better kind of symmetry with windows

to

work with the residential frontage. So it's not necessarily a zoning, but it's more of the character of the neighborhood. But I just wanted to make that comment to my colleagues. Right now, it's just the front. It looks like the back of the building.

Yeah. We we'd definitely be amendable to working through that front facade more to make it

work better.

Yeah. That way that way, you're not putting all the windows at the corner because you're let you're trying to accommodate your your stair your stairwell, I think you could do it. You can have it more, you know, the kitchen space, the social space out to the front. Okay. No further questions. Thanks.

Thank you. With that, may have public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner has completed the community process. Her office hosted in a Butter's meeting on 06/09/2025 for a different version of this proposal, which was very lightly attended, but at which direct a direct abutter expressed opposition due to density. The applicant then made a number of changes reducing the density and met with abutters privately as well as three times with the West Roxbury neighborhood council, which ultimately voted to support this proposal but requested a proviso that there be sufficient screening on both sides of the property. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Frank.

Thank you. Frank Holmes here. Own the property with my siblings at 92 Rockland Street, so direct to butter to the property. I did submit a letter to the to the board last night. I'm I'm hoping that that's been received.

But just very briefly, to summarize, we've had several discussions with mister Gary here regarding ownership of the property. We requested that there be a condition. If any decision that the ZBA makes that the that the units be owner occupied and that their that the documents for the condo include a lock in provision for twenty five years so that they will need to be owner occupied for a minimum of twenty five years, and that can't be changed. We would request that that lock in provision, you know, be a condition of any decision the ZBA make. Second, two other points briefly.

We did raise at or I raised at the neighborhood council meeting. I I didn't see listed as part of the relief being here for use as a multifamily. That's my understanding that the zoning here is for single family residential, and so the neighborhood council didn't feel that that was to be addressed by them, but I I'm asking the question here. I I believe that that relief is also required. And then my third point is in discussions with mister Gary, are we inconsistent with the council's recommendation for screening.

We had requested that he provide a budget for us, for our property, for landscaping. And I just want to I'd like to hear from James. You know, I sent you an email yesterday, James, regarding the amount of that. I I not don't know if you can comment if you are committing to what we're asking for here. Our support is dependent on on that.

Thank you.

So, Frank, I I did actually respond to your email.

Okay. I didn't see that. Sorry about that.

And we did commit to doing that. As we said, we were we worked really elaborately in a very long process with the neighbors, and we were amendable to that. We understand that screening was important to you. So we did concede to fund that budget towards that. So we did email you, and we we responded to that. Thank you.

I I

didn't see that.

Any other comments? Any other raised hands?

Also, starting with that relief.

I'm sorry, sir.

Okay. Sorry.

Thank you. We don't have additional comments.

Any other response from the applicant?

Yes. Regarding the the relief, I do believe when looking at my zoning code refusal letter, the one that was that has been update that has been updated and submitted to the board, that use variance is listed as one of the violations.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Mister Stembridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedellazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries, Gamakso.

Thank you.

Next, we have Cape BoA 1805281 with the address of 101 Edgemere Road. If the applicants and the other representative are present, will they please explain the case of

the court? Good morning, madam chairman. Madam chairman, I apologize to the members of the board. My name is attorney Francis Adams with a business address of 350 West Broadway in Boston, Mass. I represent the owners of the vacant land at 101 Edgemere Road in West Roxbury.

The property is located in a multifamily residential subdistrict, which allows townhouse development as well as other properties. This application is to construct a two townhouses, attached townhouses on vacant parcel of land. There has never been any development on the parcel. The lot size of the parcel is 60 almost 6,200 square feet. Each townhouse will be approximately 31 feet high, three bedroom, two bath over a great slab parking with the 1st And 2nd Floor in an unfinished attic.

The application is consistent with the Boston planning goals in Imagine Boston 2030, which is promoting infill development. As I said, this has been a vacant parcel of land. For the for the members of the board, the property is surrounded almost entirely on the left and rear by Jewish cemetery association, and to the right, there is an abutters property. This Edgemere Road is a long road that leads into a housing development at the end of the road. This particular side of the road, as I said, there's no residential development after the property on the right hand side.

We are seeking relief for five very violations. FAR is excessive. Height is excessive only because of the number of stories. This is a two and a half story district, but the height of the property is 31 feet, which is well below the 35 foot limit. Side yard is insufficient, usable open space, and the use is forbidden.

For the record, the use is forbidden because the property is located in a one f 6,000 district. As I said, though, this is consistent with the it's in a MFR, multifamily residential subdistrict, which allows for a row house or townhouse development. Just a couple of points. As I said, we met we've had a good community process. We met with the buyers in the West Roxbury neighborhood council and voted to support the project.

We also are aware of the planning department recommendation for approval. The only other issue again is the height, which we said it's it's it's only a height violation because it's two and a half stories, not not of any any height of the property. We believe this is a reasonable development consistent with the mayor's goal to create infill housing on vacant lots of land, and it's consistent with the surrounding housing stock. There are variations of housing, one family, two family, as well as multifamily large apartment buildings at the end of Edgemere Road. We believe this is a good application.

We we're using not using the whole whole lot. There's gonna be green space. There's gonna be rear yards, and there's also gonna be rear decks to increase the open space for each of the two units. And parking for the units will be at grade and under the building, so there'll be no parking in the front of the property. With that, we will take any questions from the board.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

Yes. Can you walk us through the curb cut for the parking?

Yes. So that's one of the planning department's recommendation. It was for design review consistent. They they are recommending that there only be one curb cut. There is no curb cut on on on Edgemere Road right now. This is a vacant parcel of land. So we are familiar with the planning's recommendation. My client is amenable to having a single curb cut, which will branch off to the left and the right to allow access to the property.

Thank you. Any other questions? Ma'am, public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, Segi Yatsu with the office of Neighborhood Services. Petitioner has completed the community process. Her office hosted an abutters meeting on January 27 at which one abutter raised questions, but no opinions were stated. And abutter at Number 95 was not able attend the meeting, but wrote a letter of opposition to our office, which was forwarded to the board. The applicant met with the West Rock Prairie Neighborhood Council, which voted to support this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we we have Rachel. Rachel? Hi.

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I live at 95 Edgemont Road. I am right next door to where the proposed building is. And my concern is that this is an overbuilt for the size of the lot. And I have several old trees along the along the fence line on my property, and I'm concerned about damage to those trees with an overbuilt.

Thank you. Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

Can the applicant address the that feedback? Sure. Thank you. We we're

not aware of the tree line, but as as the board may know, we we will not be able to attach or touch anyone's trees on their own lot. I we believe this application is a very reasonable development for a 6,200 square foot lot. I at the at the meetings that we had with the community group, we did a analysis of the surrounding properties in the average. And that's all

of Edgemere Road as well

as Willard Street in DeSoto, which about the you know, surround this area. And the average square foot is approximately 3,600 for all of the properties in that area, which is just about what we're proposing here. We don't believe at all that it's an overreach. It's a two and a half story building and on vacant land. It's consistent with the housing stock as the planning department states in their recommendation. It's it's very consistent with the size and scope of all of our surrounding properties. And again, with respect to the trees, we have no problem working with the abutter if if there's a concern with the trees. This has not been raised as an issue to us. But respectfully, if there's an issue with trees, we'll work with the abutter to make sure that they're pruned and trimmed and we don't borrow them.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion for approval with a proviso that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with a focus on consolidating the singular curb cut on the lot that preserves maneuverability.

Is there a second? Thank you. Mister Stumbridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Benavazza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, members. Appreciate it.

Next, we have case POA 1806951 with the address of 55 To 57 Saint Mark's Road. The applicants and or the representative are present with their choices. Spread it to the board.

Thank you, Mr. Stemberg. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Kyle Smith of Staterra Law, business address of 359 Newbury Street of Boston's Back Bay. I do have the owner on the call as well and the project architect. We have a pre existing two family that is currently occupied by the owners two sons.

The proposal is merely to add dormers to the current 3rd Floor, to add usable living space to create a third unit, nine thirty four net additional square feet, three bed, one bath, increasing a preexisting nonconforming FAR of 0.67 rendering it a proposed 0.84. There's an existing curb cut. There's two current off street parking spaces. The proposal is to add a third space with two of them being in tandem to provide one space per unit. The owner who's on the call has an additional child that's going to reside in the 3rd Floor, sorry, twins.

They're going to reside in the 3rd Floor, so the entire proposed three family structure will be owner occupied. We did present to the SMA CA on the March 31. We do have a vote of support that's been provided to Stephanie Haynes for your review. So I think any existing nonconformity is preexisting. So by going vertically, do have a further exacerbation of a nonconformity preexisting side yard setback. But otherwise, I think it's relatively self explanatory. I'm happy to defer and turn it over to the board questions and or commentary by the architect or owner. Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may have public testimony?

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Ella Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 55 To 57 Saint Marks Road, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an a Butters meeting held on 01/1226 that was well attended by several Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerns of density where the community members mentioned that ongoing parking issues at this proposal, they are worried will increase if, and if the, condo unit will still be owner occupied in the years to come instead of turning into a rental.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Saint Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 03/3126. The association expressed support. At this time, the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Madam chair, members of the board, Blaine Remus from councilor Fitzgerald's office, office of the Leggo and Records for this proposal. Thank you.

Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

K. If the applicant like to respond to that feedback?

Yes. Just briefly, at the abutto meeting, the original proposal was for two off street parking spaces where the preexisting number of spaces in response to the question about additional parking that was where the third additional parking space was entered And that updated site plan was kicked back to ISD, which ultimately removed our violation for nonconformity for parking. So we did work to try to address the concerns of the community from the initial buyers meeting and then the updated number of parking spaces presented to the SMA CA on the March 31 for which we do have the SMA CA's approval. So we think that we have tried to accommodate and work with the community on the original current number of parking spaces to add a third.

Thank you. Any further questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion. Motion of approval. Second. Thank you. Mister Stubbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner?

Yes. Miss Bedobrazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries the vote.

Thank you kindly.

Next, we have case BOA1797245 with the address of 2038 Dorchester Avenue. I believe one of our members will be recusing himself.

Yes. I need to recuse myself in this case. Thanks. Thank

you. So we we will be a six member board.

If the applicant's answer or their representative are present, would they please why the case is gone?

Good morning, madam chair. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Ernst Gurriere with an office address of 299 Gallivan Boulevard. Amazingly, it's just right down the street from this property. I have the pleasure of representing the owner of the property sitting to my left, Marie Gurria, who also happens to be my wife.

So I have to do a good job this morning, madam chair. I present to you and the board for your approval 2038, which is a transit oriented project. As you can see, it's located right in the Dorchester corridor only a few blocks away from Ashmont Station directly in front in front of the building is 10 bus lines. The proposal is for a four story building with ground floor retail space. I should submit to you that the project we started way back in 2025, and originally, it was for a 24 unit building.

We engaged the community by my office sending out letters to abutters as well as members throughout the community. We heard from them, and thank you for all who may be online today. After hearing back from them, we scale it back to 18. We also engage all of the stakeholders, including our elected officials, and then we scale it back against to 12. During the process, I should point to you, there was a fire in the back of the building that damaged part of the building.

And then as a result, the building now sits vacant. And and while the the the fire took place, I should report to you no one was badly injured even though the tenants were displaced. We had the opportunity to engage with the PPDA who assisted in the design and and made some recommendation. So what we have for your approval is this project, and we're seeking relief from nine variances, predominantly article 65, which is multifamily forbidden. This is an existing two family, so it was already forbidden.

And I should let you know that historically, this building has been a mixed use where the previous owner used the 1st Floor for his law office and the 2nd Floor residential. General forbidden use for retail space. In in keeping with the characteristic and what we heard from BPDA is that most of the newly designed project in Dorchester have a 1st Floor retail. We have not made the determination what we will ultimately do with the 1st Floor. Our intention probably is move our law office there and keep the rest of the building residential.

Off street loading, there is, in fact, a driveway in existing parking lot. So, again, depending on what goes in the 1st Floor, we would modify then an off street parking. I would submit to you generally and my office, again, is right down the street. It's not an an issue for Dorchester Drive and the airplane off street parking. As I pointed out earlier, it's right down the street from from Ashmont and the bus line.

The floor and the height what we've heard throughout the process from most of the the community members in Butters is that they wanted an all access building that would accommodate everyone, those who may be physically challenged. And as a result, Marine decided to put an elevator in the building, and that's the height restriction. My architect is also online, Fred Moneygut, who will walk you through the design process. And I should just send you, for your review, I'm happy to support more than 42 letters of support, most of them directly from neighbors to the left, neighbors to the right, as well as our elected officials. We were able to to get letters of support from madam counsel, Julia Mihir, and we've worked with the office of Brian who may or may not be online.

So at this point, I'll turn it over to Fred MoneyGuy to walk you through the design. And if you have any questions, I'll happy to list to to address them.

Thank thank you.

You, madam chair, members of the board. I'll keep it very brief. I think mister Gaye alluded to a lot of the points that I was planning on making. The basic fact of the building is they are representing 12 units, six one bedroom, one bath, and two one bedrooms, two baths. It's a transit oriented design, so we're on what we feel is a is a very accessible address in terms of public transportation.

We made it from National Station, 12 bus stops right in front of the building. We're proposing a four story building that that is in keeping with a lot of the structures already on Dorchester Ave and a lot smaller than a lot of the new construction that have been put up in the last couple years. So it's it's it's basically a building that we think is gonna be keeping in scale and style. We're west in the neighborhood, keeping the vernacular intact, and and and keeping the units to a point where they're small enough that they they they actually fit the transit oriented model in terms of one and two bedrooms. We are providing three parking spaces that have have not been dedicated to anyone in particular.

That can be decided at a later time. Maybe they'll support the the the the the retail's office space that could be in the Ground Floor, or maybe they can be assigned to to maybe three tenants that may have some special needs. So and having said that, I I'm open to any questions you may have on the design. Thank you very much.

Thank you. How much queen space is there? I I guess I'm I'm not seeing bushes or trees on the site.

I don't know if you can bring the site plan. One of the things that we comments that we received from the neighbor neighbors and and and in the many community meetings we've had was was an issue regarding lack of green space. And one of the things we are committed to doing is is assuming that we probably will need to have some sort of review with BPDA is is to actually bring these issues to front and and address them. We feel like it's it's very easily tackled by by by by providing some some green space in the front of the building and also towards the back. We will have a driver that'll be a permeable space, and then maybe there'll be maybe there'll be some opportunities there to have some green line bushes on the alongside the properties.

So there's some work to be done in that in that sense, but we we do intend to to make some progress towards that goal.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Can you just vote if this is rental or homeownership and and how you comply with the inclusionary development policy?

Well, I don't know if everyone's agree to that. I know we are obligated to redo it, the the ordinance in in terms of affordable set aside. So that will be that will be done. And I do believe that is is intending to go above and beyond that. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. And, again, during my brief presentation, I I mentioned the extensive community engagement. Originally, when we started, we intended to to make those all rentals. And when we engaged civic leaders, there was a very strong desire to just

for

homeownership, and they educated us on the need for that. And what we would like to do with permission of the board is to make them condos, but reserve two of them simply because we have two kids who no longer wanna live with us and have a desire to move back into their city. With with with approval from the board, we'd like to keep at least two of the units for ourselves so that we can pass them on to our children, but the remaining would be condos to promote homeownership in the community.

I think as long as it does not interfere with the IDP requirements. Like, you're not taking those two off of the 12.

No. No. No. No. Well, how many units

are affordable is that really the question of this project?

Two. Yes. Two units. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Two. Okay. Thank you. Okay. With that, may I have public testimony?

Hello, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Eppa Jones representing the mayor's office in neighborhood services. Regarding 2038 Dorchester Ave, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an uputters meeting held on 12/01/2025 that was well attended by several broadcaster community members where the feedback from this meeting was overall productive, although there were some concerns expressing density and parking. Additionally, we received letters of sub excuse me, letters of support from councilor Meniere Culpepper, councilor Julia Mejia, and councilor Ruth Ruthie Luizen.

We also received 20 letters expressing support and two letters expressing opposition to the project. The proposal was also reviewed by the Lower Mills Civic Association, and the applicant has had some difficulties in conversation where the Civic Association had significant concerns, including density, parking, setbacks, as well as height, and requested the applicant make major changes and return to meet with them at a later date. The applicant wished to move forward with their proposal at this time. The mayor's office of neighborhood services refers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Madam chair, we don't have

additional hands raised at the moment. Thank you. Can you comment again on the the Ground Floor uses?

Yes. So go ahead. Yes.

So the Ground Floor my office, again, is at 299 Gallivan Boulevard. And in terms of just giving you geographic location, it's just one and a half block away. Our intention is to move the office to the Ground Floor, and that was, again, born out of the community concern. They just didn't want a lot of people coming in and lack of pocket. And the way we operate, we are able to schedule those who visit our office, and and we do a lot of Zoom meeting, and we think that would be represent the least amount of disruptive to our neighbors and the community.

Okay. Mister are you on just to can you clarify the the use piece, the general retail versus a law office? Yes. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston planning department. General retail is a completely different use than a professional office. So I think if the appellant were to put his law office on the Ground Floor of this building, they'd need a change of occupancy because, like I said, general retail is a very different use than a professional office. So that I just want that as a point of clarity and just an FYI for the appellant.

Thank you. Thank you.

Is someone named Thomas, are you looking to speak? I am, madam chair. Okay. Briefly. Yes, please.

My name is Thomas Maestros. My address is 1049 Adams Street in Dorchester. I'm representing the Lower Mills Civic Association, of which I have been a board member for approximately thirty years. I am a thirty nine year resident of Lower Mills. I'm a registered architect, and I've spent fourteen years also spent fourteen years working as a design review architect with the BRA, where I had the opportunity to prepare and present projects like this for the board's consideration.

I am here today to voice at Lower Mills Civic Association's strong objection to the proposed variances. The opposition is based on excessive release being sought. The comments that we moving forward on with those points would be the proposed plan places 12 units on a site where three I repeat, three are allowed. Is not another there is one with the exception of one property, there is not another multifamily building with a 70 foot radius of the building, with the exception of the Boston home, is across the street. And that's on a five acre lot.

The proponent plans for a four story structure in a neighborhood of approximately two and onetwo story structures, single and two family structures. And but although there are a few three family dwellings to the south between this property and Morgan Street, Galvin Boulevard. The proponent plant's commercial use on the Ground Floor, a forbidden use in the 3F subdistrict. As the board is aware, these commercial uses have been a problem to rent even in the popular community commercial subdistricts. So parking without sand a good chance of without parking this space stands very good chance of not being able to be leasable.

The proponent plans only three parking spaces for 12 units or a two point about 0.25 parking ratio. It's not clear how the spaces will even be accessed by their plan as insufficient space is being provided for maneuvering. Even the TOD two development is up in Ash right at Ashmont Station has a two to one parking ratio. Ratio,

we we don't even believe that

the project could be financeable with so few parking spaces. The proponent proposes no front yard setback. Although they had come to us indicating that they would Can

you please wrap up your points?

Can you please wrap up your points? So no front door.

Yeah. The project has no usable open space. The FAR, it's almost double

the level

FAR. The underlying line f three d residential sub district is established to maintain the character of the earning, which is

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can the applicant briefly respond?

Yeah. Yes.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

Yes. Madam chair, I think there were a few points that were made that I maybe I can address very quickly. In terms of the scale of the building, I think if you stand in front of a a proposed building, I think within viewing distance, will notice a few addresses. That is 910 Duchess Of Ave, 1943 Duchess Of 1975 Duchess Of 2045 Duchess Of Ave. That's just four of them that I can think of right now.

They are much larger scale than what we're proposing. And if anybody was familiar with Desert Of Ave, a a this corridor does have several four to five story buildings, and and what we're proposing is not foreign to what's been in in the neighborhood for a while. It also was been presented and and and built in the last few years. As far as setback, there there is there is a little bit of setback being presented right now at the site where there there will be opportunity to to plant some bushes and some greenery, but we are open to pushing the building back a little bit to to create even more of that if if if if desired. Regarding the parking, I think we were very frank at the onset of this presentation that this is a transit oriented design.

We don't we are in with a with a project that is within walking distance to Ashman Station with 12 bus lines right in front of a building. So we feel that the the parking issue, while we understand how important it is to the community, we we feel like because of the nature of this building, we we we mitigate that quite a bit. Thank you very much. Are you you on mute, madam chair? Sorry.

Sorry. That's okay. Any other questions from the board?

Yeah. I just in regards to the BPD recommendations of providing some front yard setback, that would ensure kind of elimination of the three parking spaces in their rear. I do see problems with the maneuverability of getting in and out with the with the one of the parking spaces right at the end of the driveway. And so the question really yields, you know, would the project still work without any without any parking spaces if you were to really include some front yard setbacks of you know, based on what BPD is recommending. You said The question for the applicant, would you be would it be would it still work if you were to eliminate one or two spaces to accommodate Yeah.

Yes. We we believe that the project will still stand on its own merit if we were to reduce the number of parking. And as I mentioned, this part this project is a transit oriented proposal. We're not relying on parking for the viability of the project. This we we we expect and actually will encourage many of our inhabitants to actually take advantage of public transportation.

And the the parking spaces were were being proposed. We we still act as a sort of bonus amelioration on the site. And and I think if we needed to push back the building and sacrifice one parking space, I think to me, it's a it's a it's a valuable and and it's trade off and that I will be willing to. And and and and, again, we are very flexible in terms of our arrangement with whatever you guys propose into the engagement with DPDA and making some changes to the building or to the site plan site plan. But I think when you look at the building overall, the the scale, the number of the the number of units, the type of units that being proposed, I think that's very in keeping with what's being proposed up and down the Cheshire Ave, and I think we we think we're very excited about this project.

Yeah. I don't have any further further questions.

So we're not going back and forth with public comment, so now is the time for the board to speak. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review for site planning on the overall location of the building to kind of work with its context setbacks. And the other proviso is to allow for the BPD to determine the amount of parking, if any, but to increase open space, which I feel would be needed for 12 unit to accommodate dumpsters, trash. That would be my motion.

And the housing agreement to be executed.

I'm sorry. And then to also a third proviso that the applicant enters into a housing agreement with MOH to provide affordable units per the IDP regulations. Regulations.

Thank you. Is there a

second? Second.

Mister Stumbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss turn sorry. Miss Benebraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Goodbye.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you.

Madam chair, the next two are next two cases are the pending cases. I have a note that the first one will be withdrawn, and the second will be deferred. With that, we have case BOA1776829 with the address of 31 Plain Street. This is the one that have note being withdrawn. And and I'm sorry.

And along with that, we have case BOA1776822 with the address of 29 Point Street.

And, Caroline, do they already have a new deferral date?

Yes. So for 29th Plain Street for June 16 at 11:30AM.

Do you need two separate motions or one else? No. One is not. Okay. So may I have a motion?

Motion to defer until June 16 of this year at 11:30AM.

To defer 29 Plain Street. Is there a second? Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss

Turner? Yes. Miss Vebraza? Yes. Miss Bonauto? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

So with that, we'll move on to the next case, which is case BOA1805913 with the address of 42 East Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, then please explain to the board.

Good morning, chair, madam chair, and members of the board. My name is Bonnie Tam with JCBT Architect. We have came into the board a couple years ago for the variance of 42 E Street. And at the promised stage, not realized the last plan exam, I missed a couple of items on the refusal letter. So the drawing layout hasn't been changed since after BPDA.

So the added item that was missing including additional insufficient lock for drilling unit, use regulation, and main door being on the side. So these actually, the doors, we haven't discussed at the first meeting, but it wasn't on the refusal letters. And we're seeking to see if the board can approve this matter today.

Questions from the board?

Mister Hamkins? So just to

confirm that you have Yes,

three units. The project is for three units and nine parking spaces?

The parking spaces hasn't been changed, and it's the three unit. Yes. We have plenty of parking spaces.

So why do you need nine parking spaces for three units?

We have actually reduced the number of parking space to put more to for six parking space. From the first meeting, the board was seeking we have a couple of visitor parkings in the front. From the fur very first of the zoning hearing that the board suggest to reduce those parking and push the building forward and have more green space. So we don't have outdoor of

lot we we

of that.

We building. Have

six garage space spaces and three surface spaces. So we we

have have mister Hampton, you know, perhaps you spaces anymore.

Yep. There's no more outdoor parking spaces.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Hampton? Mister Hampton?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. As the appellant stated, they do have stamped approved plans by the BPBA for six garage parking spaces. We were a little confused on why this was coming back when they did have stamp plans, and we were wondering why all of a sudden these three violations were now being cited after the ZBA had approved this back in 2023 and the appellant had received our stamp approved plans.

We were curious if the design is changing and what else might be happening. So we just wanna have some sort of confirmation that this was an error by ISD and that because I don't see any new plans, they are still using the ones that were stamped by us to be presented to the inspectional services department.

Correct. There's no changes since BPDA approval. It was ISD error that missing three items of the violation on the refusal letter.

And this was brought after you had tried to bring the plans to ISD?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Van Houri. I'm the QHS, the community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of no later. Subcommittee prior distributed to our voters as well as encouraging the vote to reach out to Pacific Association, and with no community feedback was approved to move forward. Thank you for your time with the result of delivering services. We'd like to defer to the vote.

Thank you.

Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

K. Would that may I have another

Madam chair, sorry.

I just have a clarification. Can you go to the the front the front the parking spaces, please? The front elevation where you see the garage. So I'm reading the front the front elevations. Page six. Yep. Keep going. Okay. I see. So this this garage is internal to the driveway. Correct? Correct. Okay. So I'm I'm still a little bit confused in regards to what we're approving. So maybe, madam chair, you can just clarify one more time what we're approving.

I see mister Hampton's hand up. I think you can Yeah.

Do this better just this Yeah. This may be very splitting of hairs, but the design that is being shown here is different than what is on the stamped plans.

That was per BPDA request.

When? Because we have stamped plans from 2024 that do not show these changes.

Can can I make a I'm sorry. Can I make a motion of deferral so that we

know

we have just a clear picture of what we're approving?

Because there seems to That would be helpful since the, again, the project description also seems slightly off, right, with the three spaces, and then it seems like the plans are different than what BPD approves. So we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Mister Stembridge?

Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedevraza? Yes. Miss Fanado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Stephanie, do you have a date for them?

The next date would be July 14.

Okay. And I can I make a recommendation that the applicant if you if you can provide a submission of what BPD stamped as the approved plans Mhmm? And and submit that with then the these design and outline what what is being changed or what we are approving. Just a little

bit of context would be

helpful in the explanation of the project. Understand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next case is case BOA1543093 with the address of 1195 to 1199 to adjust the record. And before we go any further about it, we have recuse themselves from this case.

I need to recuse myself from this case. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

We are again a six member board.

So with that, we will have will the applicant then go to representative who's close the take this forward for?

Sure. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small. I'm a business adjuster of 51 Dobson Road. With me today is the architect for the project, mister Anthony Pizzani. And so today, we're here seeking relief to combine parcels, demolish the existing structure at 2 Greenmount Street, and erect a three story building for offices and retail spaces at the address on Dorchester Avenue.

The zoning subdistrict here is straddled straddles two zoning subdistrict, property does, which is the neighborhood shopping district and the three f d 3,000 subdistricts. We are with the combined lot size of about 12,100 square feet, we're seeking to erect the three story building for offices and retail. With regard to zoning violations, inspection services department has cited us both in both selling subdistricts, and so we are seeking relief from this board for those violations. The FAR, in the name of the shopping district, required FAR is one, and the three FD is 1.3, and our proposal is at 1.6. With regard to the use, the excess the accessory parking in the residential is forbidden use, and the use in the retail in the residential is we're also seeking relief for.

I can stop there and let mister Bazani present the plans and go through the the program as presented. Hey, Susan. You can allow mister Bozzani to Yes. Thank you.

I I just would like to point out that these plans while the plans are accurate, the these are older elevations

and do

not absolutely reflect the changes that we made to the project. The changes that we made to the project were basically elevational changes. If you could go back to the front elevation, I'll I'll I'll simply describe those.

Scroll down one more. That's the parking plan. One more. One

more. That section.

Want the section through or okay. One more. No. This is China. That was

the context.

Okay. So this this was the first scheme. And the first scheme shows and the major change was that this scheme shows brisole across the front elevation. The neighbors thought that that was a little bit aggressive. And, what we did was we subsequently eliminated the brisselais, and we used a larger cornice line that is a curved cornice line.

The project other than that, the plans if we go to the plans now.

Scroll down again.

Okay. So we we can describe the project well from here. The project is on Dorchester Avenue and Greenmount Street, the corner of Beck's and is surrounded by the dark block. The project consists of retail on the Ground Floor and small scale office space on the 2nd And 3rd Floor. One of the needs that has been developed over time in this neighborhood is there are very little there is very little space for small time commercial.

And the community and the owner have discovered that there's a need for small time office space for everything from accountants to perhaps dentists to

Yeah. And so we we've worked extensively with the community with regard to the retail space and the office space. The current occupant of the building is a nail bay salon and and businesses that will be moving into the building as well. And we've heard extensively from the community that they would like to see a bank or and or a credit union on the retail ground level, you know, going for the retail space. And so that's what we are seeking to seeking to do.

If you scroll down a little bit further, madam mister Depp, you can you can stop right there. This shows the parking plan. The parking will be off of Greenmount Street. We are proposing 12 parking spaces in the rear of the building, and the traffic flows from Pleasant Street in Dorchester down to Dorchester Avenue. There is an existing curb cut on Greenmount Street, and then folks would turn right onto the street and then take a right onto Dorchester Avenue.

So the traffic flows pretty steadily. We work with the community, again, extensively. We sought a curb cut off of Dorchester Avenue, but the transportation department did not agree with that as there is a very large curb cut which supports the dot block building on Dorchester Avenue within that block. So the parking again will be off of Greenmount Street 12 spaces, and we will be using the existing curb cut on that site. We can stop there and take any questions that folks may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office in neighborhood services regarding 1195 To 1199 Dorchester Ave. Our our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process has been con ongoing, and a meeting was hosted more than two years ago. Considering the time passed, we requested another meeting that was hosted on 03/1826 that was well attended by several Dorchester community members and mostly residents from Greenmount Street, the street that this proposal intersects.

The feedback from this was residents had significant concerns in regards to parking as they were unsure how crawl spaces would accommodate both ground floor retail and office spaces above. They also expressed that their street received significant congestion during rush hour and we're worried that this proposal would only exacerbate that issue. The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association where they requested changes for the proposal to include a drop off area and additional curb cut for the traffic to flow better. The association planning and zoning committee recommended support for the general membership vote. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Hello, madam chair, members of board. Maynard, mister council Pitzerland's office are also going record in support of this proposal, we've also received a bunch of comments from constituents about the parking entrance and exit off Fremont Street. So just looking forward to hope they continue to work with the residents just kinda address and alleviate the concerns.

Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

Can I just add, madam chair, that prior to the sponsored Butters meetings, we have been working with and we will continue to work with the residents on Green Mile Street? We've had several meetings with them, and we will continue to do that as as the project move forward if if if approved. Also, we are amenable to the recommendations of the BPD with regard to this project as we move forward. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? May have a motion?

Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval that the project undergoes BPD design review to pay special attention to the screening that's required along the parking area and and also just for site planning review.

K. Is there a second?

Second.

Second. Mister Mister Thunbridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Benavarazza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much, madam chair, members of the board. Have a good day.

Next next, we have case v OA1824677 with the address of 16 Nightingale Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, they please explain the case to the board.

Sure. My name is Alex Tupkova. I'm the owner of the property, and Dmitry is my general contractor and partner on this. This case was actually approved in 2023 already, and then it was retroactively refused because of ISD errors similar as to the previous not previous, but the case site before that was mentioned, and we went through the same thing. They left out one of the variances.

We back in 2023, we went through the others meeting. We talked to the we had the letter of support. Everyone was on board with this project. This is about one block away from Talbot Station, so it is a transit oriented development as well. We're not adding any like, we're not changing the building envelope aside from adding the balcony in the back. And the 4th Floor was already preexisting prior to the fire damage. It was used as attic space. We just asked to convert that to a habitable unit, the fourth unit. This you're looking at the new proposal, but, again, nothing has changed since 2023. This is identical to what was presented in 2023 and was already approved.

The difference, and Mitra can speak speak more on this, was in that one of the variances was missed at that time, which did not surface until we were going ahead through actual e bill later on.

Sir, what was the violation that was missed?

It was sparking radius. Dimitri, do you wanna speak more of that?

Yeah. I'm so sorry. I'm having trouble by video, so I apologize when I'm trying to get that in order. But I believe it was instead of five feet, it was down to they referenced it as three feet, and that was

the only difference. It was

the two feet difference. But the inspector, when we applied for the building permit, still requested us to come back. But it was approved by the ZBA.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the judge as a community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of notification flyer distributed to a notice. To date, our office has received one letter of concern regarding proper dark construction as the resident goes properly would be disrupted for his family in the area during construction. So that has been sent to the board for review. Thank you for your time, and this office number of services would like to defer to the board for their chance.

Thank you. Chair, we

don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

K. May I have a motion?

Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second.

Mister Stenbridge? Yep. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedebraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you. Keep going.

Next, we have case BOA1836018 with the address of 18 Jerome Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Mister Stenbridge. Good morning, madam chairman, mister board, attorney Derek Small about the address of 51 Dobson Road. I'm here today seeking relief to erect a three family dwelling on a vacant lot. The zoning subdistrict here is a three f 5,000, so it is a three family zoning subdistrict. Our violations are FAR. The required FAR is point eight. We are proposing 1.9. Side yard violation requirement is five feet. We have five on one side and three on the other.

Rare yard setback, the requirement is 30 feet. We are proposing three. With regard to parking, the required parking is three spaces, and we are providing none no off street parking. So the violations are the dimensional violations in this zoning subdistrict, which are are very common on all of the lots. If we go back up to the site plan, that would be great as this section of Dromey Street is a dead end street.

That dead end, if you wanna go back to the site plan, that dead end street, that section of Dromey Street, there are a number of vacant parcels, all of which are are are kind of small in nature. But, historically, this section of Dromey Street has been the site of a lot of illegal dumping, a lot of nefarious activity. And so what we're trying to do as well is try to create housing on vacant lots, keeping in consistent with the mayor's plan for creating housing on the vacant lots in the city of Boston, as well as getting rid of the blight of these vacant lots in this section. Again, we are seeking to create three family dwelling in a three family subdistrict at at Jerome Street again. So we met with the fire department.

The fire department has cleared the way for access on that section of the Dead End Street. We've had several meetings with butters and neighbors who are welcome some some activity down on that section of Dromey Street, And so we are seeking your approval for this today. I can stop there and answer any questions that folks may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name

is Charlie B. Bemberry. I am

the community engagement specialist. I'm the Deutsche Buchner's community engagement specialist for the office of liquid services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists consisted of an opposing meeting facilitated on January 7, which one boarder attended in a support of the proposal expressed in favor for additional housing in the development. The proposal was then presented to Dudley Square Neighborhood Initiative on February 26. Concerns raised included the lack of proposed parking and sufficient setbacks and the potential impact of market rate development on local property taxes, which may create financial burdens for fixed income families.

Additionally, W Street neighborhood initiative expressed the opposition to the proposal due to the absence of affordable housing units. Thank

you. Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Madam, if if I may, these are two bedroom, one bath units. They will be homeownership opportunities. And, again, I think there was some concern with the meeting at DSNI that there were no affordable units, quote, unquote, affordable with regard to the IDP. And I, you know, and I expressed to them that it was required on a project of this size. So with that, I'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second. Mister Stambridge? Yep.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes. Ms. Bedobrazo? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Or yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much, madam chairman. Have a good day.

Next, we have case VOA 1824914 with the address of 73 Satchel Street. The applicant and or the representative are present with the plaintiff's report.

Good morning, guys. David Hassman here.

Please proceed.

Thank you. My name is David Hassman. I'm a Mission Hill resident. I live at 13 Worthington Street, and I'm presenting this. This is a two family property, and I'm proposing the addition of four units utilizing the adjacent lot, which was previously purchased from the city of Boston through the RFP process.

Part of this process was in a commitment to maintain the historic wall at the front of the property and a large oak tree Through careful design with my architect architectural team, Heresco associates, we're able to design a property where we could develop units that are feasible and find to be a good fit for the neighborhood. The total unit count will be six. We are within the height requirement of this addition. We will have four we are proposing to have four two bedroom units and then three I'm sorry, two duplex three bed units. Our areas of relief needed are insufficient parking, use forbidden, excessive FAR, insufficient additional lot area per unit, insufficient front yard setback, and insufficient rear yard setback of the shallow lot.

With that, I will turn it over to the board for comment and questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may have public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, Ziggy Johnston with the office of neighborhood services. Petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 4 at which no opposition was raised. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam chair, next, we have Elizabeth Benham.

Hi. My name is Elizabeth Benham. I live at 1 Eldora Street in Mission Hill. I was unaware of the meeting. We have trouble getting mail here because of never mind. It's the new post office. We don't get our mail. But, anyway, I am concerned because this is not housing for people who are not students, and we are surrounded by students. And we are also living in a place that is gets we can hear Fenway's concerts from here. So my concern is I have to walk around and find out so I can ask the kids to please go inside or turn down the music.

We're up at three and four, and then it's just density for me. It's density. And we have another place that's just being built now that they're gonna have, like, 12 kids in there, 12 more kids. So this isn't for affordable housing or for people who live in the city that wanna have a community. I don't we don't have a neighborhood anymore on the street. It's just taken over by rentals. And the rentals, they make a lot of money because they get four or five kids in one apartment, and they at working people cannot afford the rents in contrast to the students. And so this to me is is like, this isn't helping with housing other than for students.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next,

we have the person with the a an AS iPhone.

Madam chair, members of the board, my name is Adam Sarbaugh, Mission Hill resident, community alliance board member. Speaking in support of it as the ONS rep referenced, Dave has spent multiple times to the community alliance, took feedback from the engagement and the meetings, and actually changed his design accordingly, eliminating some outdoor space and some patios from other neighbors' concerns, abutting neighbor concerns of that. He did Mission Hill is a tough neighborhood for development, and Dave Haston went through with flying colors in the vote on approval and support in the community alliance, which is which is an a rare feat. So I just wanted to point that out both as a Mission Hill resident and as a board member of community alliance to support the project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Tony Baez.

Good morning, madam chair and board. Tony Baez, behalf of

We'd just like to go

on record. I'm sorry. You're going in and out.

Councilor Durkin would like to be, record in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. There are no additional comments.

Okay. Are there other questions from the board? Can the applicant touch on the concerns that were raised?

Sure. I appreciate Adam's comments and to reiterate that. So based on after initial meeting, was March 18, we went back to the drawing board and we removed a single outdoor space for the unit, And that was in recognition of any potential noise from the single outdoor space to our abutting neighbors. I've met with the abutters directly on-site there. And I'm happy to address the the comments from from today's meeting, but I feel like removing the outdoor space was appropriate.

And also mentioning that five of the nine units that I do have are rented to professionals. I'm not I'm not targeting students on this. I am a by trade, a property manager, and so I have a good track record of maintaining units as well as maintaining our our residents within the community.

Thank you. Any any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge. Are you on mute, mister Stembridge?

Sorry about that, madam chair. Yes.

Thank you. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedobraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, at this moment, since we passed the 11:00 hour, we will I'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11AM here. Hearing done. We'll return to the 09:30 hearings to case BO81827268 with the address of 49 Vine Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, may you please explain the case report?

Good morning, everyone. My name is James Sanis Faso. I'm representing 49 Vine Street in Charlestown. And what we're looking to do is build a carport where the existing parking spots are for the aging priests that are living in that building. There's been existing parking there, and we're just looking to add coverage due for weather. We had a priest fall last year, and we've been using temporary tents almost to cover the lot, and we're just looking to put a more permanent structure there.

Next. Questions from the board.

Can you explain in terms of the parking? What what is there now? Is it just open space?

Yeah. It's just an open lot that can fit I believe it's four full size cars and two compact cars.

Right. But that's what you're proposing. So

existing what? It's the those spots exist currently.

Those spots do currently exist?

Correct. Those carport spots exist. You're not adding more parking.

Correct. No. I'm just looking to add the coverage over the top of it and building existing parking spots? Correct. Yep.

Okay. And and what is the reason again to do that?

There's just aging priests that are living there, and it's been just a struggle in the winter for them. And we've used temporary structures and, like, tent like structures. And they this came up. Someone suggested it. So we said, let's look and see what it takes to to do that.

Right. So it's for it's for an aging population, you said?

Yeah. The the coverage. Yes.

Okay. I don't have any further questions. I'm just I would like to I'm trying to find out why the Boston Planning Department is their recommendation's denial, and I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that. But

if Mister Hampton would like to weigh in. That's fine. I'm wondering

if the sub we have the summary here. So I I'm wondering if

they're clear that these were the same spots that exist. Are there other questions? Have any further questions. Thank you. May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, Sidney Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 1 when abutters supported the application, citing the good community based organization and the positive work they do in the Charlestown community. Office also received two letters of support with similar sentiments for building a carport over the existing parking. We're not aware of any concerns from the community. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam chair, next we have Stephen Marine from City Council of Coletta.

Hi, madam chair, members of the board, here on behalf of councilor Coletta Zabata. And our office would like to go on record in support of the requested zoning relief for Harvest On Vines proposed carport at 49 Vine Street. This improvement will strengthen food distribution operations and support an organization that provides essential services to residents across Charlestown. We respectfully urge favorable consideration. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board? Yes. Can you just send go ahead. Yeah.

I would address the issue of screening. Is there any plan to do any landscaping on this site?

In front of where the cars are, there are existing trees and and bushes there. But it's right now, it's all asphalt. So I don't I don't there's nothing planned currently to add, and there's a little island behind that also has some greenery in it.

Yeah. Would you be open to removing one of the compact space to allow for some green kind of vegetation screening along tough street because, you know, reading the BPD recommendation, it's they're proposing denial because it's impacting the major kind of pedestrian street experience. And so, you know, would you be willing to reduce one of the spaces to allow for vegetation?

We we can look at that. I'm not opposed to any of that, but we can definitely we can definitely look at that. And all along Tuff Street there up to where the parking lot is too, there's there's green space and trees and bushes. And right now, when you walk up there, it just it's ascal.

Right.

I have question too just to From some from some the comments, people are mentioning that this cohort is going to support the food distribution program. You mentioned that this is to help all the residents who use those parking spaces. So which one of those two are the main reason for this proposal? There

are two food distributions a month that are happening in the parking lot right now. The residents live there three hundred sixty five days a year. So it it it would do both. The there are, yeah, there are 25 food distributions a year that are right now since COVID happening in the parking lot. So they're both they both would happen. Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions? Is there a motion?

Madam chair, I I like to put forward a a motion of approval with a proviso that the applicant works with BPD on the size of the port to allow sufficient vegetation to reduce the the impact on on the public way. There's a second?

Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bairavazza? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1704112 with the address of 19 To 21 Mill Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, will they please explain the case before? Good morning, madam chair and members of

the board. I'm Steve Bartlett of Foley Hoag LLP counsel for the applicant in this appeal, Curaleaf Massachusetts Inc. This appeal requests board approval to change the name of the petitioner on an existing conditional use permit for the cannabis dispensary located at 19 To 21 Milk Street in Downtown Boston. The the name of the petitioner on the existing permit is John Moriarty, and the only change to the permit for which my client is seeking approval from the board today is to replace that name with Curaleaf Massachusetts Inc. The board should be aware that my client has completed the Boston Cannabis Board licensing process.

On 03/25/2026, the BCB voted to approve a cannabis license for Curaleaf at this location. Then on 05/11/2026, Curaleaf and the city of Boston executed a host community agreement authorizing Curaleaf to operate a co located medical and adult use cannabis dispensary at this location. So in other words, the BCB and the city of Boston have already vetted and approved Curaleaf Massachusetts Inc. As an operator of a cannabis dispensary at this location. And therefore, we respectfully request that the board grant this very narrow relief requested in this appeal, which is, again, simply changing the name of the petitioner on the existing conditional use permit from John Moriarty to Curaleaf Massachusetts Inc.

That is the long and short of this appeal, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Before I do that, I would like to briefly address what I believe may have been a clerical miscommunication related to a revised refusal letter that ISD issued on April 22. After the BCB provided ISD with confirmation of its vote to approve a cannabis license for Curaleaf, ISD issued a revised refusal letter noting that this location, 19 To 21 Milk Street, was within the buffer zone of another cannabis establishment. But to be absolutely clear and for the reasons that we set forth in the supplemental letter that was filed last week, this appeal does not raise any buffer zone issues, and that is because there is an active conditional use permit for a cannabis establishment at this site, which has been operated as a cannabis establishment for almost a decade. The board might be aware that this location is actually the site of the very first cannabis location in Downtown Boston.

In April I'm sorry. Excuse me. In August 2016, Patriot Care, now known as the cannabis, opens opened its doors and began dispensing medical cannabis products to registered patients. Then in 2021, the conditional use permit for the site was amended to allow for both medical and adult use cannabis sales. It is this conditional use permit that remains valid, and this location has already been cited and approved by the board as a cannabis dispensary.

So as a matter of law, there is no buffer zone issue that the board needs to address here today. It might be helpful for the board to know that I've discussed this very point with Ed Coburn and Caroline Burkard in the ISD general counsel's office. And I I won't presume to speak for them today, but I have my understanding is that they see this issue in the very same way and have concluded that this appeal does not give rise to any buffer zone issues. So for that reason, if the board believes it would be appropriate to make an express determination that no buffer zone issue exists here and that no variance is required for this very narrow relief that has been requested, my client and I would certainly support that resolution as a way of clarifying the record. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Yes, madam chair, members of the board.

On a new move,

the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office to refer to the judgment of this board. Some background information in the community process, ONS had hosted a community meeting on 04/03/2025 that was likely attended. In that meeting, the applicant was able to answer questions that the Downtown Business Association's representative had for the establishment. They went on to present to the Boston Cannabis Board where they were approved.

There was concerns from the Wharf District Neighborhood Council that wanted to engage more with the applicants as well as concerns from another dispensary operating in the downtown area. But as you heard, the Boston Cannabis Board did approve this proposal and worked out a host community agreement with them. I've got information with no further concerns that we're aware of before the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised for comments.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion approval.

Is there a

second? Second. Mister Stambridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner?

Yes. Miss Bedraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you all.

Next, go to the hearing schedule for 11AM. Once again, I'll briefly ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals.

Hearing

done. Move on to case BOA1822363 with the address of 47 Farragut Road. The applicants and or the representative are present. Will they please to the board?

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. I'm Nick Landry from DRT. We're the architects for the project, and I'm joined today by Andrea Higgins, the the owner of the property. So we're here today. We've got a quite small project. We're we're just looking to finish some space in the basement to create a exercise area. We sent in a presentation. I don't know if we can pull that up. Well well well, it's getting pulled up. So what we've been cited for is an FAR violation.

We're increasing the finished square footage in the basement by about 260 square feet. Oh, perfect. Alright. Great. So, so the project's located at 47 Farragut Road right on the corner there. If you can we go back to the last presentation? Perfect. And if you just pull up for a second to the first slide. So we're well, the project's located at 47 Farragut Road here. It's here.

It's on the corner of East 3rd And Farragut in South Boston. We're working on on just the the scope of the work will just be on the 1st Floor and in the basement. None of this work will be visible from the exterior. Can you go to the next slide, please? You can go to on the next slide here, we can see the so the zoning violation, there's an FAR violation.

What's allowable is is two point o. Currently, the building as it sits is about 2.6, and with these changes, we'll be at about 2.72. And, again, that's just gonna be finishing some some space in the basement. If we can go down to the next page and zoom in on the plans on the on the left hand side there and just scroll down a little bit. So so the so what we're looking at right here, the the top the upper left hand corner, basement, you can see there's currently some finished space in the basement.

It's highlighted in blue. We're just gonna be increasing that space to make that that exercise area a little more usable and and the bathroom also a little bit more functional. And that that unit currently, in order for Andrea to access that space, she needs to exit the building door on the back of the building down a stair. Now we'll be adding a stair that will directly connect her 1st Floor space to that basement space to The ease make it a lot easier to use. With that, that that's the scope of the project. And if you have any questions, happy to happy to answer.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may have public testimony?

Yes. See you, Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted in a butters meeting on March 19 at which no opposition was stated. City Point Neighborhood Association took no position on this application. With that background, ONS defer his judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry. Next, we have Ashley from councilor Flynn office.

Good morning. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support due to a good community process. You requested a proponent continue to work closely with neighbors and abutters. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no additional comments.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Sorry. It's

Hi. I'm sorry. Can you hear me?

I think that yes.

Hi. My hand was up. You didn't call on me. You unmuted me. So my name is Louanne O'Connor, president of the City Point Neighborhood Association. And I just wanna go on record that the abutters meeting did happen. There was no opposition. This particular expansion is considered a good project. It's positive. It does not, change the look of the house and or Farragut Road, which is one of our better looking streets in South Boston. And with that, we decided they did not need to come into City Point and could proceed straight to ZBA. So we will take no position on this. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Barrazza. Second.

Mister Stumbridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner?

Yes. Miss Barbaraza? Yes. Miss Pinato? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries the ball. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1811934 with the address of 16 Monument Square. If the applicant and or the representative present with their police report.

Yes. Good morning, madam chairperson and board members. My name is Sarah Matusa. I am the owner of 16 Monument Square. And alongside me, I have my architect, Elena Rosado, to help answer any technical questions that you may have.

In essence, I am the owner of the Top Floor unit of a five unit dwelling on Monument Square. Collectively, we are in need of a new front half of the roof due to leakage. I am the lucky recipient of those leaks and have had those for the past six or so purchased in 2020. The roof predates me from the late eighties, and the roof deck also predates me by a few owners. With the demolition and redo of the roof, I would like to get a new roof deck.

I was told it would be cheaper to actually do an entire rebuild than to reuse all of the existing materials that are up there. And so I am asking for the ability to extend the footprint of the roof by two feet closer to the street. I will be in the same breath reducing the total height of the roof deck and total height over on the right. You can see that. And additionally, I'm making a design change to the structure itself.

Today, they are wooden slats that are about an inch and a half to two inches wide each up and down, and it will be a much more minimal design of a cable wiring for less presence, so to say. It's only one facing view to the street. Each of the two sides are concrete structures of my neighbors at both 15 and 17. So with that, I'd love to take any questions you may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted in a butters meeting on April 14 at which no comments were made. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam chair, I'd like to defer a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second.

Mister Stubridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bednar Brazza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am. Thank you. K. With that, we'll take a five minute break to 11:30.

Recording stopped.

Mister Stenbridge?

You're on mute.

And, hopefully, I'm not now. Madam Chair? Present.

Thank you. Mister Valencia?

Present.

Miss Turner? Present. Miss Bedebrazo? Present. Miss Panado? Present. Mister Collins?

Present.

Thank you. Right back to you, mister Stumbridge.

Madam chair, I need to refuse from this case.

Hasn't even been read yet, but okay. Okay.

Yes. We will read discussion cases scheduled for 11:30AM. We begin with case BOA1821678 with the address of 70 Street. It's the applicant. Sorry about that, chair. Go ahead.

I was just gonna say we're a six member board.

Yes. Okay. And I believe mister Christopher is ready ready. I am, mister secretary. Thank you. Good morning, madam chair, members

of the My name is James Christopher of six eight six Architects with the business address at 10 Forbes Road. I'm here behalf today on behalf of Niam Nguyen and 70 Arkland Street. The proposal before you is to construct a rear two story addition with parking at grade. We need some zoning relief, which include the use itself. This will be a five unit building. It's currently a three unit building. We'll be adding two units to the addition. Lot width and frontage, the existing lot is 40 feet wide. The requirement is 50. FAR, the existing FAR is point six four, and we are proposing 1.05.

Building height and front yard, which are preexisting nonconformances, we will be matching the existing height at 36 foot two. The side yard is both left and right are preexisting nonconforming, but we'll be extending that preexisting nonconformance on the left side, but not worsening. And then the rear yard is currently 76.5 feet, and it's required to be 30, and we are proposing 17.7 feet. As we go through the plans, the the proposal is to it's pretty straightforward. It's a three unit building.

There's no work to happen to the front building. We constructed two story rear addition with five covered parking spaces to the rear. There there was a change during the community process to the building shape and design as we had had a flat roof, and the comments came up that they would prefer a little pitch, and so we were able to accommodate that. And five parking spaces that great while maintaining a 17 foot rear yard open space. So with that, I'll answer any questions I can.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. Could you please provide more information about your landscape and open space plan? There are a couple of comments about concerns that you don't have enough green space, open space. I have go And, also, what is your plan for parking? One of your one of the others is mentioning that the parking is going to negatively impact their property. So if you can just talk about those two items.

Sure. Currently, there is two parking spaces at grade to the rear of the property. Under the new addition, we will have five spaces. To the rear of the property, we will have a 17 foot by 40 foot, a little bit less because we have a turnaround area of open space, which we're certainly happy to work with the BPD to to provide some planting and usable space to that area. But the parking is accessed off of the driveway. Five spaces, one per unit.

Good. Thank you. Other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Hello, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Ella Jones representing the mayor's office in Neighborhood Services. Regarding 70 Epland Street, our office differs to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including an Butters meeting held on 04/1426 that was well attended by the Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was mostly productive community conversations where some concerns were also expressed regarding the parking and the height of the building. The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association where they opposed the proposal with concerns related to density. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thanks. Next, we have a Leon Clements from Consulate Fisher.

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. The council, like, go and reckon in opposition to this proposal due to some of community concerns with the size of building intensity on the water plan. Thank you.

Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

K. Any additional response from the applicant?

No. I think, you know, this area is a densely populated area while adding the much needed housing in close proximity to two train stations. We are still maintaining a yard that is larger than most of our abuttas. So I think that this is an appropriate use of this site. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I'm sure I make a motion of approval with the providers of the plan under gross planning department review, special attention to increasing and improving open space. Is there a second?